Articles Posted inQueens

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said petitioners were charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny. At a jury trial, petitioners requested an instruction on breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, petit larceny, but this request was denied. Thereafter, the jury found the petitioners guilty as charged and the criminal court sentenced each of them to fifteen (15) years. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the guilty verdict holding that the proof of guilt was overwhelming and that any error committed by the court’s refusal of the requested instruction on the alleged lesser offense was harmless.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the appellant was charged with the criminal act of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, viz.: petit larceny. The information charged three elements: unlawful breaking, unlawful entry and the intent to commit petit larceny. The jury found appellant guilty of two of the three elements set forth in the accusatory pleading by finding that he had made an unlawful entry with intent to commit petit larceny or entering without breaking with intent to commit petit larceny. Clearly, the verdict found defendant guilty of a crime included within the offense charged by the accusatory pleading.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant is appealing his conviction of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, possessing marijuana, and using a firearm in drug trafficking. He argues for reversal based on a denial to suppress evidence that was found in a search of his home and complains that the evidence in the case was insufficient to support any of his four convictions.

Case Background

Six probation officers acted on a tip that the defendant, who is a state probationer, was in possession of both contraband and firearms contrary to the terms of his probation. The officers arrived at the defendant’s home and he invited them in. The defendant first denied having weapons, but then admitted it and showed three weapons to the officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officers placed him under arrest at this time. The defendant then showed the officers two more weapons. In addition, the officers found several other weapons, drug paraphernalia, and miscellaneous drugs during their search.

The petitioner is a federal prisoner who has petitioned to have an error of law in the calculation of his sentenced based on a Supreme Court Decision that interpreted sentence guidelines. This decision was made eleven years after the defendant was sentenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue before the court is whether the savings clause permits a federal prisoner to challenge his sentence in a habeas corpus petition when he could not raise that challenge in motion because of the bar against successive motions.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant was found not guilty on a charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, but was convicted on the other count made against him of possession of marijuana. The defendant argues that the court made an error by not granting his motion for acquittal as the evidence for the charge was insufficient.

Case Discussion

The conviction of the defendant was for constructive possession and not actual possession. The only evidence that was submitted in regard to the charge of possession of marijuana was that the defendant was alone in the car at the time he was arrested and a later search of the car revealed a marijuana cigarette. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the officer who conducted the search did not remember where it was found and did not note in the inventory of the car where the joint was found.

A husband and wife were accused of having issued checks that bounced. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said there were nineteen checks issued altogether and the value of each check amount to no less than twenty dollars and no more than thirty dollars. The checks were issued as payment of items bought at nine different stores and business establishments.

The public prosecutor brought these facts to the Grand Jury and asked the Grand Jury to hand down an indictment against the spouses for grand larceny. The grand larceny issued an indictment for grand larceny. Before arraignment, the accused couple asked the trial court to order the district attorney to file a bill of particulars to state the facts on which the charges are based.

When the district attorney had complied and had submitted the bill of particulars, the couple moved for the dismissal of the charges. The couple argues that grand larceny cannot be charged against them as each check represents a separate crime. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the checks were issued not to one person and they were not negotiated at any one establishment. Thus, the couple contends, no crime of grand larceny was committed because none of the checks issued amounted to $250 dollars although the aggregate value of all the checks, if added together, amounts to $425. The couple maintains that the nineteen checks cannot be considered as a whole or as an aggregate sum.

An undercover police officer had heard rumors that it was possible to purchase drugs without prescription from a pharmacy in Manhattan. He had also heard it said that it was also possible to purchase drugs using a different prescription and the purchase price was discounted when a Medicaid car was used.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the undercover police officer entered the pharmacy and asked to buy forty pills of an antidepressant and a drug for treating high blood pressure. The pharmacy clerk out front told the undercover police officer that 40 pills were too many to sell without a prescription. He also told the undercover police officer that it was a federal crime to sell those drugs without a prescription. However, the clerk told the undercover police officer that he will speak to his boss who will decide. A few minutes later, the clerk came out with two bottles of pills, each containing forty pills. One set of pills was stamp-marked 2105V and the other was stamped 129. He paid twenty dollars for each bottle of pills.

A week later the same undercover cop returned to the pharmacy and asked for 20 antidepressants and 20 high blood pressure pills. He was given two bottles again, one contained 25 pills marked 2105V and 25 pills marked 129.

The chairman of a local political party was charged with grand larceny for having taken and appropriated monies from the funds of the local political party in all the nine years that he was chairman from the years 1968 until 1977.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the accused chairman seeks the dismissal of the indictment for grand larceny against him on the ground that the charge was jurisdictionally defective: the facts on which the charge was based were all conclusions of fact and do not apprise the accused of the crime for which he is being charged. He also claims that the monies he allegedly took from the funds of the political party were taken in a span of nine years. The accused chairman claims that there is a statute of limitations that limits prosecutions for grand larceny to those committed within five years from the time of the indictment. Since the charges were for the taking and misappropriating of funds and property committed for nine years, the charge contains facts which are already barred by statute while there are still some facts which are not yet barred by statute. This makes the indictment void according to the chairman.

The public prosecutor opposed the motion to dismiss. The prosecutor asserts that a charge in an indictment is sufficient when it contains facts that clearly allege each element so that the accused can understand what he is being charged with and so that he can defend himself.

The defendant has been convicted of possessing with the intent to distribute 41 pounds of marijuana. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said he is appealing the conviction and seeking a reversal because of actions that were taken in the district court. First, the court refused to grant a continuance of his trial so it could be held after a co-conspirator pled guilty. Second, the court did not allow the counsel for the defense to cross examine a witness on their prior misdemeanors. Third, the court allowed prejudicial testimony concerning the reputation of the defendant for telling the truth and being honest. Fourth, the court refused a verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence and refused to allow results from a polygraph test that the defendant took. Finally, the court refused to consider a charge of proximity to marijuana as opposed to possession.

The defendant has supplied supplemental briefs and has motioned for a new trial. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he states that a new trial should have been granted on the basis of newly found evidence and because of the suppression of favorable evidence by the government.

The defendant in this case is appealing a four level enhancement that was applied to his sentence for using or possessing a firearm in relation to another felony offense. The district court found that the defendant’s firearm possession facilitated the underlying drug possession felony.

Case Background

According to the facts that were presented in the case a police officer observed the defendant and another individual acting suspiciously near a gas station. A New York Drug he officer stopped the defendant and asked if he had anything on his person that would be of concern to the officer. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant admitted that he was carrying a small amount of marijuana. The officer searched him for the marijuana and found a loaded semiautomatic pistol in the front pants pocket of the defendant along with a small bag of marijuana. The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of marijuana.